Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
namely john mccain and lindsey graham for the criticism leveled at susan rice. the u.n. secretary, shortly after the attacks that resulted in the death of four americans, she went on "meet the press" and other sunday shows and said what happened in benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest that morphed in to something else and resulted in the death of those americans. republicans attacking ever since. but now, as susan rice's name floated as a successor to hillary clinton as secretary of state, mccain and graham taken out after susan rice. that, no question about it, it came from the heart and raised the ire of president obama. here's what he had to say. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to -- to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they th
're in "the cycle," and you have my word it's going to be good. >>> the case against ambassador susan rice as a successor to hillary clinton deepens. she went to the hill today to smooth it over with senators mccain, ayotte and graham who criticized her original comments on the deadly benghazi attacks. i picture the conversation between the president and rice going like this. we want you as secretary of state, so go make nice. answer their questions so they stop attacking you and threatening to block your possible nomination. yeah, so how did that work out? >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. it is clear that the information that she gave the american public was incorrect. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related to a video that created a mob that turned into a riot was far afield. if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? >> i'm more troubled tod
. >>> we talked about the president's cabinet. susan rice was on the hill. what are her chances of secretary of state now? as the final ever "cycle" rolls on. music is a universal language. but when i was in an accident... i was worried the health care system spoke a language all its own with unitedhealthcare, i got help that fit my life. information on my phone. connection to doctors who get where i'm from. and tools to estimate what my care may cost. so i never missed a beat. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. >>> u.n. ambassador and secretary of state front-runner susan rice on capitol hill today meeting with two more republican senators. susan collins from the armed services committee and bob corker of the foreign relations committee. following the meeting, senator collins echos the comments of colleagues that met with rice, she expressed concern of how the events played out in benghazi before and after the september 11th consulate attacks. the senator also weighed in on her choice to repl
, kelly, this is steve kornacki. part of this story, then, involves the potential nomination of susan rice, the u.n. amambassador, to replace hillary clinton at the state democratic. it's susan rice who a lot of republicans have decided lied to the public. they allege was executing some kind of intentional cover-up plot by the administration. i don't know how that would work or what the cover-up would be. be that as it may, that's what republicans are saying. you have john mccain and lindsey graham both saying if her nomination is put forward, they will filibuster it. are there any indications that that would become an official republican party position, because if the republicans unite, they would have the 40 votes to kill it by filibuster. >> there is a lot of opposition among republicans to a potential susan rice nomination. people are not actively talking about filibuster, although that's the obvious presumption if you talk about members trying to block something like this. in some was they are saying that she was schoezen bied white house to be the public face in the early days after
susan rice and john kerry. i have no problem with susan rice. i think she's fantastic and unfortunate how she's been treated recently. i tell you, john kerry during this campaign has been fantastic in his debate prep with the president. i thought his speech as the dp nc was brilliant, and i think he would be a terrific diplomat. there's concerns that if he was nominated then the senate -- his senate seat would be open and scott brown could have another shot at getting into the senate. i don't think that would be the worst thing in the world for the president, especially since we picked up seats this time around. scott brown, as a republican who may actually across the aisle, could actually serve as a useful political tool for the president. that will be interesting to watch. the other one, of course, is treasury secretary time geithner leaving. one of the outside names that's been floated is cheryl sandberg, coo of facebook. she's the first one and she's had a terrific choice. another name i haven't heard but my virginia centrist byas leads me to bring up is mark warner, senator from
-up and attacked susan rice as incompetent and unqualified. >> if this select committee if appointed clears her of any wrongdoing besides not being very bright because it was obvious that this was not a, quote, flash mob -- >> susan rice, by the way, is rhodes scholar. madeleine albright has said she's one of the smartest people i know on national security. there's report backing up claims ambassador rice just delivered the message that she received from our intelligence community. cbs news reports the points were not edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist afill yags or play down that this was an yak. the intelligence community opted to leave specific reference to al qaeda and terrorism out of her presentation because they didn't want al qaeda to know that we knew what we knew. this is classic investigative philosophy. don't let the suspects know you suspect them. it's clear to me there was no mendacity by susan rice, no incompetence, there was no cover-up by the white house. to continue to argue there was any of that is now tin foil hat stuff. there is also now no will t
under scrutiny for the benghazi affair. along with that, of course, susan rice is a controversial figure at this point not just because of benghazi, but folks like dana millbank coming out and questioning her qualifications. aside from that, you have john kerry who most aagree is completely qualified, but is putting someone totally new in that office with everything going on right now the best idea? what would you advise president obama to do right now? >> oh, gosh. that's a tough question, because susan rice is being unfairly pillared for what happened here. at the same time the state department is primarily responsible for the breakdown in security. the failure to provide adequate security to our ambassador in libya. that investigation is clearly something that mrs. clinton is going to have to reckon with. in a choice right now where the middle east is aflame and where iran ultimately becomes the greatest diplomatic and potential military challenge that the united states faces, it's clear that the president's going to need sure footing with a secretary of state who has the stature and
are john kerry and u.n. ambassador susan rice, who has been caught up in the questions about benghazi. so if hillary clinton does leave, does that put more pressure on the president to go in a different direction other than susan rice? >> well, i'm only speculating now, because my reporting on this dates back to well before the election when i got a little bit focused there. i will say that if you talk to people in democratic establishment and political establishment on the hill and in national security circles, you do find that neither of those candidates is seen right now as a perfect choice. there are drawbacks to both of them. ambassador rice has a lot of supporters first and foremost, the president to be sure. controversy over her public statements about benghazi give people pause about whether she's the right person with a confirmation process over, whether she's the right person for the job. in the case of senator kerry, there's doubts from some people about whether he'd be the perfect secretary of state. he was passed over four years ago for secretary clinton. if you took him out
really glomed onto is what susan rice said on face the nation. i want to play her comments so we can put that in context. >> i understand you have been saying that you think it was sfont n spontaneous. are we not on the same page here? >> let me tell you what we understand to the assessment at present. first of all, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the united states government will launch led by the fbi. we want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is, in fact, what it began spontaneously in benghazi. >> so she's actually very cautious, you know. lots of caveats. she gets asked specifically if al qaeda might have been involved. she said need further information. we don't know. so a lot of the attacks specifically on her for what she said irng are totally baseless. the other piece of this is the implication is there's some sort of cover-up. that, you know, the president and the administration wanted to hide that this was really
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)